That's pathetic, giving a goal kick instead of a corner is a tiny and insignificant decision that has no bearing on the game. You can trace any goal back to a throw-in that should have gone the other way or a borderline free-kick. If Holland hadn't spontaneously decided to defend like spanners for the last five minutes no one would be talking about such minor calls. I thought he did a good job too, in one of the most difficult matches to referee of all time.

Didn't they score on the counter where the ref should have called the Elija foul?

Originally Posted by Uppercut

Well if I'm right about the immediate dismissal guidelines, he only really had two options- red card+immediate free kick, or nothing at all. Given that Robben stayed on his feet, it's reasonable to assume he'd have preferred the latter, so that's what Webb gave him. That seems like common sense to me.

Seriously tough spot to make a decision, in any case. As I mentioned before, the ref who sent Lehmann off in the Arsenal-Barca cup final came under even more criticism than Webb has. Damned if you do...

I may have missed something, but what about Webb playing advantage and then giving Puyol his second yellow at the first break of play?

I may have missed something, but what about Webb playing advantage and then giving Puyol his second yellow at the first break of play?

Waiting for a natural break in play is dangerous for a referee in a potential sending off situation because the offender could contribute greatly to the game and even score a goal before a break occurs. If he's going to do anything he should see if there's an advantage and if there isn't stop play the instant it becomes obvious that there is no advantage.

a red card offense should always been blown the whitsle for, that's in the rules, there is no such thing as ''advantage'' when such a foul is commited.

On the subject of rules, I think I might be a bit out of date, because I can't find "blowing on Arjen Robben's shoulder" under the list of sending off offences...

Anyway, this is my last word on the matter. It was a dreadful game of football with less entertainment value than the game where you hold a chocolate bar fractionally within the each of a small child, make them jump for it, and then move the bar. There were fewer moves of footballing quality than your average desert tribesman has toes, following a double limb amputation. Neither team appeared particularly keen on playing football: the Dutch were completely blatant about it, however Busquets' role in the Spanish side is just van Bommel light, and it is telling that they haven't been digging the boot in off the field as well.

Whining about refereeing decisions is an irrelevance: on balance neither side benefited - there are days when Holland could have been down to nine at half time, and days when they could have had to abandon the game, Colin style. Yes, Elia could have have a freekick, but he's also the Dutch version of Shaun Wright-Phillips and had already lost the ball. Yes, there are other decisions that could have gone other ways, but there is no way it can be argued with a straight face that the failure to show sufficient cards cost the Dutch. That goes right in the same box as those blaming England's exit on the linesman - no, we lost because our defence may have been the worst in the tournament outside Kim Jong Il United's, and you lost because Robben blew a one-on-one.